A.M. No. P-08-2587 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 99-678-P) - DOMINGA C. MENOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. TEODORA P. GUILLERMO, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 20, CAUAYAN, ISABELA.RESOLUTION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, conformably, with the foregoing, the motion to dismiss the complaint is hereby granted. x x x" [11] The complainant's Motion for Reconsideration of the aforesaid Order was denied by the trial court on September 18, 2007, [12] for failure to give proper notice of the said motion to the defendants in the case, as required by Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. The Petition for Relief from Judgment which was later on filed by complainant was also denied by the trial court for lack of merit on December 11, 2007. [13] In a Resolution [14] dated January 29, 2008, the Court En Banc resolved to lift the February 21, 2003 [February 21, 2001] Resolution [15] , which held in abeyance any action on the instant case, considering the time that had elapsed and respondent's retirement from the service on September 17, 2003. The Court further resolved to have the present case evaluated on the basis of its merits. The OCA, in its Memorandum [16] dated July 16, 2008, made the following recommendation anent the instant case: "WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that the instant complaint be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter and that the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS retained from respondent Teodora Guillermo's retirement benefits be applied as the imposable FINE." [17] We find no reason to deviate from the afore-quoted recommendation of the OCA in the case at bar. The criminal case and the two (2) civil cases filed by complainant against herein respondent were dismissed by the trial courts on the ground of technicality. For this reason, the issues relevant to the instant administrative case remain unanswered. Hence, the merits of this administrative case should be resolved on the basis of evidence on record in accordance with the quantum of evidence required in administrative proceedings. Administrative proceedings are governed by the substantial evidence rule. Otherwise stated, a finding of guilt in an administrative case would have to be sustained for as long as it is supported by substantial evidence that the respondent has committed acts stated in the complaint. [18] Substantial evidence is such amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. [19] The standard of substantial evidence is justified when there is reasonable ground to believe that respondent is responsible for the misconduct complained of, even if such evidence is not overwhelming or even preponderant. [20] In order to support her claim that respondent falsified her signature and her husband's signature in the absolute deed of sale that transferred the ownership of the 12,143 sq.m. lot to respondent and her husband, complainant submitted the disputed deed of sale, her marriage contract [21] dated July 6, 1968, a verification [22] of a pleading done in April 1972 and an undated letter [23] to the Commissioner of Public Highways, purportedly signed by complainant's husband. The disputed deed o